I agree that many companies behave unethically during negotiations with their employees. I disagree that excuses unethical behavior on the part of the employees.
I fail to see why not signing an agreement you disagree with is unethical.
Disagreeing with terms is not unethical. It's the "pocketing." An explicit rejection of terms is perfectly reasonable. But I think it's deceit to try and hide from the other party that you did not agree to all the terms that were offered.
In a similar light, there are many places that ask you fill out your social security number among other items on paperwork. 9/10 times they will never ask you to fill in the blanks you left out...
If you leave off your social security number, your employer is presumably going to have difficulty paying taxes / social security / etc to you. Depending on work relationship (e.g. contract), they may not be doing this anyway. But there are some things they need it for.
I was speaking generally, not specifically employers. I was asked for my SSN to get a mailbox once...
I remember reading about these clauses in contracts as the "fear and loathing" clause https://books.google.com/books?id=nWWAGnBDzJEC&lpg=PA164&ots...
Glad I read that. Thank you. I probably be taking a look at the rest of that book. Is it worth the full read?
It definitely opened my eyes to the realities of this contract world that's strongly established by now. I'd recommend reading it, its a pretty fun read too being an ethnographic study and all. Covers the historical evolution and causes for it and basically the interests of the three parties that form the triangle of vying interests: employer, staffer, contractor.
Good article, except for the strange conflation of non-compete with debt. Debt implies an asset of value was received by the debtor at some point. No such thing takes place with a non-compete. Employment itself is a contract, not an asset. That's the reasoning behind CA's ban of these clauses.
Depends on jurisdiction. Turns out that in Israel, for example, where non-compete agreements require material specific pay, a non-compete lasting 3 years or more, is generally considered an asset sale and is taxed as a capital gain transaction (25% instead of the ordinary income which has brackets that go as high as 55%).
where non-compete agreements require material specific pay
That's materially different. Anywhere in the United States, AFAIK, non-compete is not part of a "golden parachute" with continued post-severance pay except for C-suite people - sometimes. Employment is at-will on both sides in the United States in the vast majority of private labor.
Holy shit. That is way, WAY crazier than a non-compete. That is saying you can't work at all for a year after your employment terminates, because anything you produce during that time is presumed to have actually been created during your previous employment, and so belongs to your ex-employer. Even if you go and work for a non-competing company in a completely different field, and invent something totally unrelated t…
In some states, it's not enforceable unless there's a monetary compensation that goes along with it.
What this author misses is that California also has a law[1] that makes unenforceable contracts that claim ownership of anything employees do on their own time with their own equipment. Passed in 1979 (amended 1991). I think other places hoping to create "Silicon $X" need to put anti-non-compete and this law in place to even have a possibility to create a similar culture to the Valley. (a) Any provision in an employm…
> Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated rese You can fit the entire planet through that loophole. Most employers can easily show that your side project “relates” to something they do or might one day do.
The company you work for might try, but the fact that the law states that you are allowed to do your own thing sure helps support a culture of side projects and startups.
In my experience the problem is that these clauses are traditionally presented to you by a non-technical employee typically from HR, and (in my anecdotal experience) these employees usually try to dismiss your concerns with a "oh it's just a formality" or "all companies make you sign this sort of thing!"... so if you're not important enough to talk to someone higher up, you might just get your offer revoked if you tr…
Those are all tricks. They put pressure on the candidate to sign ASAP. If the candidate accepts the contract as it is the company wins. If the bargains around clauses it's still OK and having many clauses to drop makes it look like the company is being flexible. Always push back!
Oh I do. I'm just saying that most folks aren't as stubborn as me, and it's unfortunate that you have to play games over something like that. All it does is screw over people who don't have many options, and widen the delta between the haves and have-nots in our field (the haves have the luxury of rejecting these clauses, while the have-nots might not be willing to "roll a hard 6" on their only job offer).
That's not what the language says. The employer claims ownership of inventions conceived during your employment and requires you to disclose them for a period of time after your employment. For example, if there's an invention -- say you worked on LIDAR for self-driving cars -- and you were part of a team during your employment. Your employment ends, then you 6 months later file your own patent for a part of that tec…
Doesn't that make part of the agreement a tautology, though? "I will promptly communicate to the Company ... during my period of employment, and I agree that any such invention ... shall be presumed to have been made during my period of employment..." Wouldn't a simple assignment clause during the employment term be both clearer and provide the same rights?
Belt and suspenders. There should be an assignment clause -- if not, the agreement is totally defective! The assignment clause is of course the key part. But there are also further assurances, that make it easier for the company to "protect its rights" as it were. It's about risk shifting. If there's a dispute, how hard does the company vs the employee have to work to make out a claim and prove damages. The rationale for company-favorable clauses is that the company has more to protect, and has the same relationship with every employee -- thus an accumulation of risks. I personally have decided I no longer view proprietary software as an ethical business model, and I would never agree to assign my rights to such a company under most circumstances. But that is a personal decision that also makes me unemployable, ahah.
So recently I came across an Invention Disclosure agreement that a company wanted me to sign. The phrasing of this kind of threw me off: "I will promptly communicate to the Company each and every invention, discovery or item of intellectual property made or conceived by me, either as an individual or jointly with others, during my period of employment, and I agree that any such invention, discovery or item of intelle…
I would totally DDOS legal with a deluge of stupid inventions. Toilet which makes farting sounds when you flush it. Spoon with a hole in it so you spill on yourself. Mug without an opening (solid cylinder with handle) Computer monitor that only displays the color pink. Headphones with integrated q-tips iPhone but its a triangle Strap for swinging a chainsaw over your head like a helicopter
I think I'd go a step farther and create web pages for them -- making sure to mention "the company" created them -- and possibly even send out press releases about them to local media.
So recently I came across an Invention Disclosure agreement that a company wanted me to sign. The phrasing of this kind of threw me off: "I will promptly communicate to the Company each and every invention, discovery or item of intellectual property made or conceived by me, either as an individual or jointly with others, during my period of employment, and I agree that any such invention, discovery or item of intelle…
The one-year is for the disclosure of the idea/discovery. So what this says is that they have IP on inventions you made while employed, even if you only disclose that invention after having left. It does not say anything about inventions made after you left.
It says if you disclose an invention after you left it is presumed to be made before you left. So if you leave, make something, then disclose it, they will presume you made it, left, then disclosed it.